Re: [PATCH 0/11] Per-bdi writeback flusher threads v9

[Jens Axboe <jens.axboe@oracle.com>]

On Wed, Jun 03 2009, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> Jens Axboe wrote:
>> Here's the 9th version of the writeback patches. Changes since v8:
>>
>> - Fix a bdi_work on-stack allocation hang. I hope this fixes Ted's
>>   issue.
>> - Get rid of the explicit wait queues, we can just use wake_up_process()
>>   since it's just for that one task.
>> - Add separate "sync_supers" thread that makes sure that the dirty
>>   super blocks get written. We cannot safely do this from bdi_forker_task(),
>>   as that risks deadlocking on ->s_umount. Artem, I implemented this
>>   by doing the wake ups from a timer so that it would be easier for you
>>   to just deactivate the timer when there are no super blocks.
>
> I wonder if you would consider to work on top of the latest VFS changes:
>
> git://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/viro/vfs-2.6.git for-next
>
> For me the problem is that my original patches were created against
> the VFS tree, and they do not apply nicely to your tree. So what I've
> tried to do - I applied your patches on top of the VFS tree. But they
> did not apply cleanly either. I'm currently working on merging them,
> but I thought it is better to ask if you already did this.

Al, what's the time frame for submitting these vfs changes? I'm assuming
2.6.31 since it's called for-next. If that is the case, then it would be
for the best if I rebase on top of those.

So, to answer your other ping mail as well, my writeback changes will
then be based on top off the vfs tree and then your 0-17 patches. Then
we should have a joint base to work from.

-- 
Jens Axboe